Hmm, interesting. A big part of what I'm doing to the driverright now is plugging in calls to the PCI DMA interfaces.So unless the underlying implementation is aware of theseplatform limitations and "doing the right thing", I'm addinga bunch of bounce buffer activity for many ia64 platforms.That would be too bad.

I distantly recall that the cost of doing PCI DAC isn't reallythat high for bursty transfers, because the bus is able togroup packets of data cycles behind one initial address cycle.But it's been many years since I last looked at this and I could havethis wrong.

On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 10:11:26AM -0700, David Mosberger wrote:> >>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:54:56 -0700, Dave Olien <dmo@osdl.org> said:> > Dave> According to the Documentation/DMA-mapping.txt file, the new> Dave> DMA mapping interfaces should allow all PCI transfers to use> Dave> 32-bit DMA addresses. Controllers on the PCI bus should never> Dave> need to use DAC PCI transfers. Based on this, writel() should> Dave> work even on ia64.> > Warning: there is a big difference between *can* and *want*. On ia64> machines with an Intel chipset, the PCI DMA interface is implemented> via bounce buffers, so it will be *much* slower than DAC. For this> reason, it is preferable on ia64 to use DAC where possible (and just> in case Dave Miller starts asking about this: yes, the hp zx1 chipset> for Itanium 2 does have a hardware I/O TLB... ;-).> > --david-To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" inthe body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.orgMore majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlPlease read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/